Viewpoint: Emma Watson isn't changing the game, she's playing it

Sorry Millennials, but our beloved Hermione Granger is not a ‘game-changing’ feminist. She, instead, is making a trendy political statement.

On September 20, Emma Watson, a goodwill ambassador for UN Women, delivered a rather impassioned speech where she introduced HeForShe, a campaign discussing the need for gender equality and male embracement of feminism, to the United Nations.

But what stood out for me the most was that only 30% of her audience were male. How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation? Men — I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue too.

Watson centered her speech around male comfort instead of women’s empowerment without realizing two very important things: 1) men who want to be feminists, or allies, do not need to feel “invited” to the table and 2) you can’t deter misogynists from patriarchy by making them “feel welcomed.”

And if you still hate the word — it is not the word that is important but the idea and the ambition behind it. Because not all women have been afforded the same rights that I have. In fact, statistically, very few have been.

Besides my disagreement with the sentiment that the word “feminism” isn’t important (words matter, folks), I also have never understood how mainstream white feminists find the courage to identify as such but can never appear to work intersectionality into their brand of feminism.

UN Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson attends the HeForShe campaign launch at the United Nations on September 20, 2014 in New York, New York. (Photo by Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images)

Watson acknowledges her privilege and while that is commendable, it doesn’t change the fact that the crux of her speech targeted privileged parties, ignored racial inequality and disregarded that income inequality is largely dependent upon race.

Watson’s colorblind, heteronormative, albeist feminist rhetoric did not consider the cultural and historical contexts that make feminism different for women who are not wealthy, white, cisgendered and able — i.e. genderqueer people, women of color, women who are disabled and impoverished women.

Change cannot be effectively proposed and initiated without acknowledging that some women face multiple axi of oppression. Black women, for instance, are effected by racism and sexism. Unlike Emma Watson, we face patriarchy at the hands of white AND black men.

But patriarchy is not the biggest, or sole, oppressor of women everywhere, as Watson seems to suggest. That linear mode of thinking erases the misogynoir, transphobia, albeism, etc. that many women face on a daily basis.

And, how can you launch a “solidarity movement for gender equality” when you erase most of the women who need feminism and center the men who benefit from said inequality?

But, the kicker here is: ironically, though Watson’s speech was male-centric, her unwillingness to utilize an intersectional approach keeps men who would love to become feminists from the table as well.

By denying the intersectionality of oppression, Watson created a space, under the guise of true feminism, that predominantly caters to white men with white women falling behind at a close second.

What is really occurring in this new arena Watson has built is the continued privileging of our society’s privileged and the promotion of a platform that tells women, and potential male allies, who are of color, disabled, poor, queer, etc. to stay out of the game because nothing will ever change for us.

“I hope that as Emma Watson continues to grow into her feminism she’ll chuck these unfortunate approaches. But, frankly, it’ll take a lot more than that for me to see her as the “game-changing” feminist she’s being called. Where’s her analysis of racial justice and its necessity in ending gender inequality? What does she know about misogynoir? Does she understand that wealthy white women like her are often oppressors of women of color and/or poor women in the world? Where’s her understanding of transfeminism? Can she explain to the UN, or anyone else, why violence against trans women needs to be centered in our work against misogyny? Does she know and can she articulate that ableism is woven into not only gender inequality, but every form of oppression that exists? And, importantly, does she understand that as a white woman she is granted access and taken seriously by mainstream feminism in ways that a woman of color wouldn’t be and why, then, it’s necessary for her to step aside and make room for women of color to be heard if gender inequality is ever to be eradicated? Because any real “game-changing” feminist needs to.

And, if you want to be real, feminism reared its head back in 1851 when Sojourner Truth gave her infamous “Ain’t I A Woman?” speech. So why not recognize the women who identify more with Sojourner and less with Emma?

Gender inequality isn’t as simple as he’s being for she’s. And, until Watson acknowledges that, she’ll never be a “game-changer”— only a player.

Julia Craven is a recent graduate of THE University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She’s a former USA TODAY collegiate correspondent (shout out to Summer ’13!) attempting to find a job writing for a news outlet. She’s desperate. Hire her. She tries to provide solid, yet more anecdotal, coverage of the places where racial identity and hard news intersect. Follow her on Twitter @CurlyCrayy for a good laugh or two.

This article comes from The USA TODAY College Contributor network. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of USA TODAY. You understand that we have no obligation to monitor any discussion forums, blogs, photo- or video-sharing pages, or other areas of the Site through which users can supply information or material. However, we reserve the right at all times, in our sole discretion, to screen content submitted by users and to edit, move, delete, and/or refuse to accept any content that in our judgment violates these Terms of Service or is otherwise unacceptable or inappropriate, whether for legal or other reasons.